However, I will give you one caveat. If you wish to categorize atheism as a 'not belief system' belief then go right ahead.

A non belief system belief is a belief, correct?....then why was I told Atheism isn't a belief? .....when it is?

I see, clearly you did miss my other posts to you on this topic. I would appreciate it very much if you'd go back and address what I wrote since it's pertinent to this.

Rightfully, atheism should be synonymous with skepticism. Given that there has been no empirical evidence put forth to advance your theistic (or any) claims there is no reason why we should give them credence. The closest you're going to get to calling atheism a belief system is that it follows a pattern, that of skeptics, but narrowed down to the field of theism. Unsurprising considering how prevalent theism is.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Can they exist (unicorns),as you say they do not exist,does not mean they dont. Can you see the paradox of your arguement. Unicorns may exist,but there fails to be proof that they do you have to use faith'

Bigfoot,Yeti,Loch Ness monster,Boogie man....the list is endless

There's a benefit to believing in God that the rest of those don't have. Even Santa has a little bit of it, but as soon as someone doesn't give a fuck about presents, even being supposed, it's pointless.

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

However, I will give you one caveat. If you wish to categorize atheism as a 'not belief system' belief then go right ahead.

I mean, it sounds like you want to put terms and conditions to it, but it still is what it is..... right?

Obviously there are terms and conditions. Is theism about a belief in cars?

A skeptic that had never seen a car before might wish to have reasonable evidence of one presented to him. If you were never able to do so, but continued to assert that cars did in fact exist that would make you a 'car-ist' and the skeptic would be an a-car-ist'.

Seriously man, go back and read what I wrote to you, it's insulting to have to write it over and over again.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Hguols, please understand that we have heard your entire argument before, many times.

It usually takes the form of "Atheism is a religion" - but "Disbelief is a form of belief" asserts much the same thing.

We don't accept this argument. We try to explain that just because we 'believe', or 'have faith', that the sun will rise tomorrow, this doesn't mean that we live our lives on 'faith', the way religious people do. Different meanings of the word.

We also understand why theists do this - they're trying to level the playing-field and show that we are as irrational as they are, on the grounds that we require 'faith' to live, just as they do.

But it's nonsense, because it's based on blurring the two meanings of 'belief/faith', as you are doing in this thread.

Can they exist (unicorns),as you say they do not exist,does not mean they dont. Can you see the paradox of your argument. Unicorns may exist,but there fails to be proof that they do you have to use faith'

Bigfoot,Yeti,Loch Ness monster,Boogie man....the list is endless

There's a benefit to believing in God that the rest of those don't have. Even Santa has a little bit of it, but as soon as someone doesn't give a fuck about presents, even being supposed, it's pointless.

What exactly is your benefit?.....the Santa Clause myth is something you grow out of (much like a theist growing intellectually into an atheist),only to return to it if you wish when you have children. You assert without proof your god is the one and only god worthy of worship. God himself did not say he is the ONLY god,just that he is the only god you should worship.

Why would you dismiss other gods in order to follow the god of some obscure small tribe in the miidle east some 2000 years ago? Why is your obviously Jewish saviour light skinned,blue eyed with light brown hair?

Are you a bible literalist?(everything in ALL bibles is the solom word of god) or do you choose to believe what is real,literal,metaphor or just a lesson? Is the earth 6000 years old? Did god actually command through the bible,his followers to kill at will non-believers even though his first commandment is "thou shalt not kill?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

MadBunny what do I have to do in order to be a follower of Russell's teapot? Does this conflict with my belief that Bigfoot is my guide,saviour and lord?

You merely have to assert that it is there.Since nobody can prove that it isn't, you must be right. You can even give it all sorts of extra powers not normally associated with tea pots if you like, they can't disprove those either.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Not believing a particular set of religious claims does not mean a complete rejection of all possible gods or god-like beings. It simply means rejecting certain claims because they appear to be untrue.

Atheism is not a belief! Why can't you say it?

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

And all this will happen because of a little B.O.P. (Burden Of Proof) on the head!

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Hguols, I had a thought last night. Just a warning, my hubby always makes fun of my analogies, so if there's something horribly wrong with it, just let me know.

This is what I'm thinking. You, Hguols, are like a person walking into a restaurant and proclaiming "I'm starving!" Now, here in the US that's pretty fine and normal, and that's what you have been doing all your life. Then you go on vacation and say "I'm starving!" in the first eatery you get to, just to find out you are in Somalia and that word has an entirely different meaning there. You get bad looks and people jumping down your throat because you said something that was very misunderstood.

This is what I see when you bang your head against the wall with words like "belief." Your whole Christian life (I know you were not always a Christian, just a semi-recent development) you have used the word belief with ease. You know what you are talking about and all your buddies do too. Then you come here and try to fit your understanding of the word "belief" with people who have gone around and around with people time after time trying to force their definition of "belief" on us when it doesn't fit.

However, I will give you one caveat. If you wish to categorize atheism as a 'not belief system' belief then go right ahead.

I mean, it sounds like you want to put terms and conditions to it, but it still is what it is..... right?It's a belief! Why can't anyone here say it?

Because it is the classic opening gambit for Theists to call Atheism "just another belief" for an attempt for intellectual equivalency. It is a complex form of equivocation. I've seen it a thousand times.

This then will be followed most often by an attept at reversal of the burden of proof. I've seen it a thousand times.

Your quote from Carl Sagan will be used in that attempt at a reversal. I've seen it a few dozen times.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 12:18:43 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Do you know that beard is a synonym for misrepresent? And clout is a synonym for muscle. So muscle and beard fits well as a sig for you Hguols. Problem is, your muscles have little clout in the forum. The only muscle that will help you here is the one between your ears. The strength of your arguments will show when you are using it.

Wether you are hiding behind a beard, or a misrepresentation of reality, is none of my concern. But when you come into the forum saying you are just curious about atheists (as a believer) and then go on to argue the meaning, your real intent becomes clear. You are not here out of curiousity to learn about atheism, but how to argue more effectely against atheism. Maybe you thought arguing with atheists would justify or strengthen your belief(s).

Therefor, I think you are being dishonest with yourself or dishonest with us. It is true that you will gain some experience arguing with atheists here. It is true that you may learn how to better obfuscate, twist and misrepresent atheism to your believer friends, but you will not be able to honestly say that you understand atheism. But then, that isn't really why you came here is it?

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

I mean, Buddhists, Satanists, Confucianism, Taoism, Scientology.... don't believe in deities. And they're not only considered religions by the laws of the land, but consider themselves religions, because that's what they are.

Atheists aren't just a little random community of people who flock together because they THINK alike. (THINK a.k.a. intransitive verb use of BELIEVE)

I mean, there is a criteria for religions.

You have your worldview. You have you own orthodoxy.You have your own brand of Apostasy. You have your own brand of prophets. (Darwin, Russell, Nietzsche)You have their own "evangelists". (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are literally seeking to convert people)You believe. (whether you want to call a thought, and opinion, it's still a form of belief.)

Everything I've seen so far to say Atheism is NOT a belief is either a play on words or a logical fallacy.

......Then you go on vacation and say "I'm starving!" in the first eatery you get to, just to find out you are in Somalia and that word has an entirely different meaning there. You get bad looks and people jumping down your throat because you said something that was very misunderstood.

......Then you come here and try to fit your understanding of the word "belief" with people who have gone around and around with people time after time trying to force their definition of "belief" on us when it doesn't fit.

Just my .02

Excellent analogy Larissa. I agree with that more than analogy than "atheism is to belief as bald is to hair color". It's clever, but it really makes no sense. It's a poor parallel example.

There are different definitions and different perspectives.... You would agree the Somalians would in effect tell that person, you are NOT starving.

.....but in effect..... both statements are correct. Starving does have a different degree, and using "starving" in place of "really REALLY hungry" would be correct usage. .....but just because you're not skin and bones doesn't mean you're not starving.

You're saying its not a belief, that its a disbelief. I do see WHY that's said.....but if its not a "belief" as far as opinion, or a personal view, then what it is?

Its almost like saying atheism isn't even a choice between the ears.

....and I've got to admit, I'm quite intrigued that the word/concept of the dreaded "B" word has atheists recoiling from it as from a hot flame. That has me more curious than WHY its this or that type of belief.

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

....and I've got to admit, I'm quite intrigued that the word/concept of the dreaded "B" word has atheists recoiling from it as from a hot flame. That has me more curious than WHY its this or that type of belief.

The "B" word you're looking for is burden of proof. It's on you.Please address this.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Wether you are hiding behind a beard, or a misrepresentation of reality, is none of my concern. But when you come into the forum saying you are just curious about atheists (as a believer) and then go on to argue the meaning, your real intent becomes clear. You are not here out of curiousity to learn about atheism, but how to argue more effectely against atheism. Maybe you thought arguing with atheists would justify or strengthen your belief(s).

I came here to learn, and I mean that in the most general definition possible. Obviously, some of what I've learned as far as your "doctrine", I disagree with. What did you expect me to do? Not question and blindly accept?

The jabs are mutual, if not one sided due to the number difference - and the fact there are jabs, I'm not going to take all of this as serious as a heart attack. I even repped you up one for your witty poem and acronym - its a breath of fresh air in here.

It isn't my job to prove there is no god. Until empirical evidence is presented to show that there IS one, then the default is that there is not. The burden of proof must always lie with the person making the claim.As I said before, the proper term for that is skeptic, however since religion is so utterly prevalent there has become a special category that relates to just specifically religion, or theism. 'Atheist'.

Do you have a particular belief system regarding Russell's Teapot? What would you call that?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I came here to learn, and I mean that in the most general definition possible. Obviously, some of what I've learned as far as your "doctrine", I disagree with. What did you expect me to do? Not question and blindly accept?

OK, I believe you are being honest with us when you say you are here to learn, although I still question your reason for coming here.

It is understandable that you disagree with our "doctrine" (wasn't aware of the law or the doctrine....but if we have a doctrine, I probably disagree with it too). I hope that you do realize that if Atheism is a religion, that the "doctrine" is as varied as all the Christian denominations.

NO, I for one don't expect or want you to blindly accept anything...I have a feeling that is what got you where you are to begin with.

I do understand that you don't believe our not believing is not a belief.

I'll even hi-5 you for actually backing up your claim with real, hard evidence (the federal court ruling that Atheism is a religion). Although, I'm not happy to have to capitalize Atheism. I think I'll have to be civilly disobedient on that.

I do need to tell you, however that the guy prisoner who said he was an atheist was actually a Christian (Some claim that he is not a Real Atheist).

Edit for typos

« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 02:00:58 PM by monkeymind »

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

I wonder if not believing in Leprechauns will ever be ruled a religion?

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

The judges in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals used no logic at all to interpret the law. Atheism CANNOT be a religion, because it is the opposite of religion. A negative DOES NOT equal a positive, and according to the Court, nothing does equal something. And how can prisoners have a Atheist "Study Group" when they have nothing to study, because they don't believe anything?

The Supreme Court 1961 ruling that you don't have to believe in a supreme being or have a belief system of higher powers is flawed and needs to be reviewed. Secular Humanism is NOT a "belief" system, it is just a individual's belief in himself, not any system of belief in a supreme being. All real religions have something in common, they have a belief system in something higher in power than themselves, as where Atheism and Secular Humanist DO NOT have this belief system. Just another example of America being rotted away by humanists and judges. Thank God, I am a Christian, and I do believe in a Supreme Being God, because there is a consequence for not believing.Mr Minority

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.